1 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 APHC010531162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27153/2025 Between: 1. RAKSHA HOSPITAL, DOOR NO.51/14-68-C-1-1, OPP NEW BUS STAD, KURNOO, KURNOO DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MOLAGVALLI NAGARAJU S/O M. SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.76/97-NVK ESTATE-15, YELUKURU HEIGHTS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDIAL HEAALTH OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IV TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICR, MUCHUMARRI POLICE STATION MUCHUMARRI, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following prayer: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Rc.No.SPL/APAPMCE/DEMO/DM & HO/KNL/2025 dated 26.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent in seizing the petitioners Raksha Hospital as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the explanations, without following the procedure and contrary to the provisions of Pre Conception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, and violation of article 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India.” 2. Heard Sri K.Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Lalith Aditya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner is a Hospital, namely, Raksha Hospital situated in Door No.51/14-68-C-1-1, Opposite New Bus Stand, Kurnool, Kurnool District represented by its Managing Director Sri M.Nagaraju. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner is a reputed hospital established in the year 2012, situated at Door No.51/14-68-C-1-1, New Bus Stand, Kurnool District. He submits 4 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 that the said hospital is running effectively without any iota of doubt or a remark from any quarter, till now. While that being the position, the learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent, in exercise of the powers vested under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (Act No.57 of 1994), has issued three show cause notices dated 02.08.2025, 05.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, pointing out certain deficiencies against the petitioner Hospital. He submits that in pursuance of the said show cause notices, the petitioner Hospital submitted explanations on different dates i.e., 05.08.2025, 06.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 respectively, which are annexed in the material papers from Exs.P.2 to P.7. 5. The learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent, being the statutory authority, without perceiving the object and intendment of the petitioner Hospital's explanations, has straight away issued the seizure of the petitioner Hospital vide Rc.No.SPL/APAPMCE/DEMO/ DM&HO/KNL/2025 dated 26.09.2025., which amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice, for which, the petitioner having left with no other remedy except to approach this Court for appropriate directions. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health vehemently submits that as the activities of the petitioner Hospital leading to multifarious problems to the patients, the respondent authorities 5 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 have passed impugned orders dated 26.09.2025, which cannot be faulted with. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions made by the parties and perusal of the material on record, the moot question that crops up in the lis is whether the principles of natural justice are violated or not? 7. A perusal of the impugned orders dated 26.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent clearly reveals that the 2nd respondent issued three show- cause notices dated 02.08.2025, 05.08.2025 and 13.08.2025, to which, the petitioner Hospital submitted explanations dated 05.08.2025, 06.08.2025 and 19.08.2025, and the same are not in dispute in the present case so far. In fact, the impugned seizure orders dated 26.09.2025 do not disclose any reference to the explanations submitted by the petitioner Hospital, nor its contents. Prima facie, the 2nd respondent passed the seizure orders without taking into account the explanations submitted by the petitioner Hospital, which is against the well established principles of natural justice. 8. In this backdrop, it is worth mentioning the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla 1 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.10, 14, and 17, held as under:- 1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 6 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 “……10.…The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order…….” 14. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders………” 17. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another very recent judgment delivered on 22.2.2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008) 15 SCC 711) stated that ‘reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless……” 9. Very Recently, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2, by taking into account different facets of principles of natural justice in its unequivocal words, observed that the primary purpose of natural justice is to assist the administration in reaching sound decisions at the outset, reducing the likelihood of decisions being overturned later. The significance lies in fostering fair and well informed decision making at the very first instance. 10. Having regard to the submissions made and in the light of the above stated position, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems 2 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 179 7 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated 26.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate action by duly following the provisions enunciated under the A.P. Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments Act, 2002 (Act 57 of 1994) and rules thereon. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Dated: 13.10.2025 Ivd 8 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.27153 of 2025 9 MRK, J W.P.No.27153 of 2025 Dated: 13.10.2025 Ivd